Well BBC, if you're big enough and corporate enough to sack workers in the UK and outsource their jobs abroad, then you're big enough and corporate enough to survive without forcing the paying public (as well as those you've sacked) to pay the TV license fee.

I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

A nationally-owned TV and radio service that isn't beholden to corporate billionaires and thus enslaved tot heir views, and which is commercial-free and whose purpose is to provide all sectors with impartial and trustworthy information and good, representative entertainment -- this would be great. I am happy to pay a licence fee for that.

But is that what we are getting? How can we get that from a company that becomes more and more corporately distasteful? My station of choice BBC radio 3, is so dumbed-down and so out-sourced that I barely listen to it any more.

It does seem time either to pull the BBC up by its socks or to cut it loose from public money.

Outsourcing

The outsourcing of program production doesn't save money, it's political and hides salaries,

IT, Engineering and other outsourcing is killing the BBC's ability to support program production, distribution etc.

The idea that the BBC should be "merely" a platform, a marketing entity is the end point. Even Amazon, Netflix and Sky etc realise to compete, other than by showing sport and made for cinema and TV re-runs that they need to do production.

Moronic.

I have simpler solutions:

1) Don't buy in material that's over priced due to so called talent being overpaid.

2) Set a cap on salaries. Note that so called presenters and comedians and "celebrities" should be paid less than real actors. Totally crazy what the "top" men are paid. Almost none have any talent, just "famous".

The issue isn't so much underpaid high profile women presenters, but overpaid men, overpaid managers and underpaid support staff.

If the BBC think they can outsource IT and have proper IT support and save money, then they are delusional, or internal Management is rubbish (actually it is!).

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

@Hollerithevo; The question is, how many of these free market changes have been forced on the BBC either directly via legislation, or indirectly via strong pressure from the government over many years?

I'm pretty damn sure that the backdoor privatisation of the BBC is proceeding as planned, with the typical modus operandi of run it down, outsource and/or hollow it out until there's so little left that the public gives the intended response of "may as well shut it down / privatise it".

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

Public Service versus Private Sector - guess who wins

Sadly, it's Atos specifying they can contract for services at a particular price point -- and Atos deciding they can reshuffle their long-serving UK workforce to make much of the required savings. As far as the BBC's concerned, from a business perspective, if that's the quoted price for a service fulfilling their requirements, they should not care about how that price is met.

Knowing the outcome, you can argue all day about the wording of the tender, but an organisation should not strictly have to worry about the morality of the tendering suppliers. I think this demonstrates that business ethics are far more important than some people still think and are overlooked at one's peril!

With context, it seems the Eurotender 'lowest cost' route has once again bitten everyone - the BBC seeks to make maximum savings (it would be pilloried if it came out that they had not gone with the cheapest quote) and Atos seeks to retain its contract even if it means losing the incumbent experts who've helped build and support the infrastructure for the past decade.

It's shameful commercialism from Atos and an impossible situation for the BBC. It has, however, insourced some of its previously outsourced operations, so it is doing something, albeit slowly. There's no way they could insource all of Atos (née Siemens, née BBC Technology) who currently look after BBC things.

Re: I have always supposed the idea of the BBC, but...

It is backwards in the U.S., but in a sense, the same.

All private companies are run by the Government (the "State"), as they are all subject to the heavy Federal and State regulations/laws which are established to protect the commonwealth (me). This is true, BUT the caveat in this truth....the private companies run the Government! Those big hitters with the cash are the ones that dictate (heavily influence) which regulation/laws are written. Hence, the only thing being 'protected' is the private company 'bottom-line'.

There are a large number of UK qualified accounts in India just ready to fill up the Accounts departments of big corporations.

Funny however that the Head of Accountancy/Finance/whatever never seems to recognise that all these roles are the same in either the UK or India (in the same way techies are) and they could save billions by offshoring their team...

We've already outsourced pretty much all manufacturing, and when I say outsourced I'm saying it in a bigger-picture sort of way in that we dont bother anymore and buy stuff from people who work harder.

Same with many low paid jobs in this country. Apparrently after brexit there will be no one to pick fruit or make sandwiches.

This country has got to realise that you cant let foriegners do all the jobs - or you starve. Work is a resource , you could say, not something to be avoided or given away to other countries.

@Prst. V.Jeltz

"This country has got to realise that you cant let foriegners do all the jobs - or you starve"

Tell that to corporate upper management who only give a shit about next years profit margins. No long term thinking or strategy, don't give a damn about their country. Back in the day the heads of large corporations actually did (occasionally) take the best interests of their country into account, but not any more with get-rich-quick style capitalism in charge. And I'm not some raging communist against capitalism, I just don't like the spiv type we've had since the 80s that only cares about profit and absolutely nothing else.

Oh, and isn't it funny how management never outsource their own jobs even though in many cases a trained chimp could do them?

⚙

So I'm renovating a house at the end of a cul-de-sac, when yesterday a car pulls up, takes a while to line itself up, then the guy starts adjusting his mirrors, and sits there watching me. "Yes I see you".

He proceeds to stake-out the property for over an hour, spying on me nailing roof battens. Who exactly is paying for this? There has to be a more efficient way.

I'm an American so I don't know if you guys even have them, but could it be a Code Enforcement officer from your council? Happens here in New Mexico a lot. Code Enforcement stakes out building sites and sometimes even goes to check licenses for regulated trades like Electrical, Plumbing and Irrigation, as well as HVAC. Code enforcement are usually real dicks about it too, they like their threats even more than regular cops because usually the only way to contest anything is with an Administrative Law Judge who will side with the Government nearly every time.

It's been known that the gobshites that the BBC employ to check on addresses that don't pay TV licenses do stuff like what's been described. If there's no TV in the property, you don't need a TV license. They ask to come in and check, but without a warrant (which they won't get) they don't have to go in to your property. You can refuse them entry.

But when you do that, they decide to intimidate you by doing what the OP described. Imagine now you're a woman on your own or elderly and you see some jackass outside your house doing that?

Re: You know who to blame

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

Whilst I don't want to subvert the thread, I'd just like to point out that you can actually have many TVs in your house - and still not require a license. The licence is not for the "owning" of a TV, it is based on what you watch or consume through that TV.

You only need a licence if you watch TV programmes live at the time of their broadcast - and then for anything on iPlayer also. You do NOT need a license if you watch pre-recorded DVDs, play video games, stream TV or watch movies on-demand or catchup TV via C4, ITV, Amazon Prime and Netflix et al (unless it is being watched live at the time of broadcast).

The rest of your thread is correct. They have no right of entry (neither do the Police btw) and the chance of them being awarded a warrant to do so is miniscule and very easily challenged.

You still havent explained who "them" is. If its building inspectors you sure have a different system to over here, where we like our buildings to get a little certifcate saying they were properly inspected at all stages of the build , not just thrown up and hope no one notices.

... cos it you did do that , they would notice , and throw it down again

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

"

I thought the rule was "if you have any equipment capable of receiving live stuff" so you have to take your aireil down or something....

"

Nope. You only need to be covered by a TV licence if you *install or operate* any apparatus so that it received broadcast TV programs. ("Install" is used as a verb). It is also the case that the person who is breaking the law is the person who has operated the TV set, not the homeowner or "head of the household" (whatever that is).

So even if the TV inspector chappie catches you red-handed watching live TV, he will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was you who switched on the TV set and selected a broadcast program. No licence is required to view - only to operate the TV set.

Re: If there's no TV in the property...

That doesn't seem to apply in Weymouth. Looking through the "In the Courts" section each week shows at the bottom end of the scale for fines, unfortunate folk such as drug dealers, car thieves, Muggers, Burglars, Shoplifters, people with no car licence or insurance. Every week the top of the table is reserved for the heinous people with NO TV LICENCE, with their individual fines higher than the total of the unfortunates below them in the pecking order. And it is not just one or two, tis often columns of them! As far as one can read into it there appears to be no burden of proof required as hardly any of them even know they are in court and so do not attend!